Follow me on twitter @rockinpreacher
This page contains video and text versions of my sermons. The sermons can also be read or viewed at fccshelbyville.org or viewed on Youtube at -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGGcOYDxJ3M

Sunday, June 17, 2007

The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath

Continuing on with some book recommendations, this one is for The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath and his wife Joanna Collicutt McGrath. Having already recommended several books by McGrath, this one is a quick 100 pages that are well worth the read (this picture must be of the British edition - mine is slightly different).

I have not yet read The God Delusion, but judging by the quotes in McGrath's book it is a book full of poor reasoning and lacking in any evidence to back the core claims made by Dawkins. McGrath, who obviously admires Dawkins' gift for writing, is withering in his critique of Dawkins for his faulty reasoning and for writing little more than an anti-religious rant.

Although McGrath examines some of Dawkins' ideas in more detail in his book Dawkins God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (see earlier post) this is probably a better place to start if you want an excellent response to The God Delusion.

As a relative newcomer to the writings of McGrath, I am more and more impressed by the quality of his writing and his theology. McGrath is a theologian of great importance and his books rank among the best works of theology. I rank him as an essential read.

7 comments:

I have not yet read The God Delusion, but judging by the quotes in McGrath's book...

What if McGrath is misstating what Dawkins wrote?

1) "Thomas Aquinas ... Dawkins misunderstands an a posteriori demonstration of the coherence of faith and observation to be an a priori proof of faith..." p. 26

Reference 14 - God Delusion pp. 77-79

Dawkins clearly writes "Thomas Aquinas' five are a posteriori arguments, relying upon inspection of the world." p. 80 - so how can McGrath claim Dawkins misunderstood that very thing?

2) '... Dawkins then weakens his argument by suggesting that all religious people try to stop scientists from exploring those gaps: "one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."' pp. 29-30

Reference 24 - God Delusion p. 126

Dawkins clearly writes "In this respect, science finds itself in alliance with sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer, united against the common enemies of naive, populist theology and the gap theology of intelligent design." p. 127

3) "When Dyson commented that he was a Christian who wasn't particularly interested in the doctrine of the Trinity, Dawkins insisted that this meant that Dyson wasn't a Christian at all." pp. 44-45

Reference 19 - God Delusion p. 152

McGrath snipped off a rather important part of Dyson's comment. According to Dawkins, Dyson said: "I ... do not care much about the doctrine of the Trinity or the historical truth of the gospels." p. 152

Dawkins would not be alone in being puzzled that someone who doesn't care about the historical truth of the resurrection claimed to be a Christian. (Why has McGrath hid that from his readers?)

4) "... the TV series The Root of All Evil? ... Dawkins sought out religious extremists who advocated violence in the name of religion, or were aggressively antiscientific in their outlook. No representative figures were included or considered." p. 51

Dawkins has previously stated that leading UK religious figures were invited to take part:

"We did invite the Archbishop of Canterbury - and the Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Westminster - to be interviewed. All declined, no doubt for good reasons.""Diary - Richard Dawkins", New Statesman, Published 30 January 2006

Some interesting points. I believe, in reference to Dawkins' show on the BBC that McGrath was filmed but not included in the broadcast. Dawkins did add the video clip to his web site somewhat apologetically. I watched most of it, and I have to say, considering the way they go at each other on the printed page the video clip was almost too polite and lacking in any real spark.

Does McGrath take Dawkins out of context? That depends, I guess, upon one's perspective. As is common in most debates, especially one as controversial as religion, I believe there is some of this that takes place on both sides. Some may be intentional - on both sides - but I suspect most of it is a matter of very different perspectives.

I would also add that among the unbelieving community (if that's an appropriate term) Dawkins is not always viewed as an effective representative. The cover article on a recent edition of either Skeptic or The Skeptical Enquirer took Dawkins to task for some of his views about religion.

I have not read Dawkins book primarily because I think, from what I have read about it and from other things I have read by Dawkins, I simply don't think it's worth a read. Dawkins, to me, becomes somewhat irrational in his writing and speaking about religion (although not as much as Christopher Hitchens)and I don't find it worth reading someone who approaches the subject with an axe to grind. I have read Sam Harris' The End of Faith, and while I certainly disagree with him about many things, I find his tone to be more readable.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to post a response. I do appreciate it.

McGrath was filmed but not included in the broadcast...Yes, and would you conclude that McGrath was considered for that TV series or not?

... the video clip was almost too polite and lacking in any real sparkCould that be why it ended up on the cutting room floor - it was dull :-)

Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, and honorary professor of theology at King's College, London, was shown in the broadcast - is there any sensible way that McGrath can claim Richard Harries is not a representative figure?

Does McGrath take Dawkins out of context? That depends, I guess, upon one's perspective.

I think it depends on whether there are examples of McGrath taking Dawkins out of context.

McGrath complains Dawkins "throws normal scholarly conventions about scrupulous accuracy and fairness to the winds” and "highly selective manipulation of facts". Should we not ask that McGrath avoids what he accuses Dawkins of?

I have not read Dawkins book primarily because ...And of course that puts you in an extraordinarily weak position to judge the worth of a book that exists solely as a critique and response to Dawkins' book.

Not liking what Dawkins writes really isn't sufficient reason to like what McGrath writes - we can do better than that.

Not having read Dawkins' book does put me in a position to be a rather limited critic. However, the points that Dawkins makes are relatively well known and I have skimmed the book and read quite a bit about it so I am not at all unfamiliar with it.

As far as "Not liking what Dawkins writes really isn't sufficient reason to like what McGrath writes" there really isn't a connection between the two. I don't agree with much of what Dawkins writes and some of it has been viewed as pretty tenuous - such as his theory of memes - but I do like McGrath's writing. It certainly has to do with our shared point of view, but I would enjoy McGrath's writing even if I had never heard of Dawkins.

Your Hitchens comments are interesting. He is certainly an interesting person, although I can't help but be put off by his manner at times. All three of these writers, and in particular Hitchens, are anti-believe as well as atheists. The distinction being that many atheists don't care about faith and have no interest in it, but Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are very vocal in their opposition to faith and would be happy to see it pass from human existence.

As for me, if people don't have belief, that is certainly their choice. I am happy to engage unbelievers in conversation at any point and they can accept or reject what I believe or what I think. I disagree, though, with the fundamental proposition of people like Hitchens who traces all the woes of the world to religion. This is simply not true. If we applied this kind of logic across the board I would reject democracy and the United States based on some of the terrible things that have been done in the name of both.

I would enjoy McGrath's writing even if I had never heard of DawkinsDo you mean you like his writing style?

The distinction being that many atheists don't care about faith and have no interest in it, but Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are very vocal in their opposition to faith and would be happy to see it pass from human existence.

We can agree that asked if they believed in God, atheists would answer no - but that's all I'd assume to know about atheists in general.

In discussion, Hitchens surprised Dawkins by saying that he wasn't sure he would like to see religion fade completely away.

Sam Harris has been spent years practising meditation specifically because of his interest in the numinous.

Take care not to turn people into cardboard cut-out stereotypes.

I disagree, though, with the fundamental proposition of people like Hitchens who traces all the woes of the world to religion.

Are you perhaps confusing Hitchens' assertion "Religion poisons everything" with the title of Dawkins' TV program "The Root of All Evil?"

"Of course religion is not the root of all evil. No single thing is the root of all anything. The question mark was supposed to turn an indefensible title into a debatable topic." Diary - Richard Dawkins

I do try to be careful about stereotypes, but this is certainly a two-way street. I find that nonbelievers certainly stereotype believers.

"Are you perhaps confusing Hitchens' assertion "Religion poisons everything" with the title of Dawkins' TV program "The Root of All Evil?"

No. I am aware of Dawkins' TV program. I was referring to the tendency of some - not all, but some - atheists to blame religion for most, if not all, of the ills of the world. I am not about to defend the evils that have been done in the name of religion, as they are indefensible. I simply think it is too simplistic a statement to make, because the logic is simply not consistent. By the same logic, perhaps I should be against democracy because of the abuses that have taken place in democracies.